No one can make that kind of assumption. There are too many damned variables.

Umm what?

Government controls government employment. Government employment is down 3%. 3% is X jobs. X jobs added to the economy, if at capacity, would reduce unemployment by Y%.

That's pretty darn knowable.

Argue that the jobs were unnecessary. Argue that we should be shrinking government bureaucracy. Don't argue that removing staffing positions doesn't reduce available staffing positions, that's moronic.

No one can make that kind of assumption. There are too many damned variables.

It's a pretty straight causal line - [x] number of federal, state, and local employees have been laid off, therefore without cuts that caused that, [x] number of federal, state, and local employees would still have a job. That's about a full percentage point right there.

Same with stimulus measures - if you know you're going to allocate a certain amount of money to infrastructure improvements, you can have a pretty good idea of how many people are going to be hired (or privately contracted, most often, meaning the contractors have to hire) to do those jobs.

i dunno about 6 percent, but the GOP has certainly had a negative effect on the economy. their asinine debt-ceiling grandstanding alone roiled markets and undoubtedly cost jobs. but then this has been their plan, literally from day-one.

FlashHarry:i dunno about 6 percent, but the GOP has certainly had a negative effect on the economy. their asinine debt-ceiling grandstanding alone roiled markets and undoubtedly cost jobs. but then this has been their plan, literally from day-one.

Well, to be fair, the default position of the Republican Party with regards to the economy is to do nothing. Supply-side economics points to only three solutions: 1) cut taxes/spending except for... 2) invest in R&D and 3) invest in education. Admittedly, the GOP is deprecating public education because a) teachers tend to be union and b) therefore Democrats. It's not a good excuse, but the bottom-line is that there IS no Republican "Jobs Plan" because there's nothing TO do.

It seems pretty unlikely that our lack of a return to 6% unemployment is due to something government hasn't done due to Republicans, even with another Stimulus.

EnviroDude:foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation

You seem to be under the impression that democrats are just like republicans. This is not the case. When republicans have 60 caucus members they can be reasonably certain those 60 votes will all be available for important legislation.

When democrats have 60 caucus members, the 3 or 4 obnoxious tools realize that they can use that razor thin margain to hold the rest of the party hostage to their ridiculous demands.

Oh, and it wasn't a year. It was 6 months, top. First to wait for Franken to get officially sworn in, then the passing of Ted Kennedy. The democrats had 60 members in the senate for 6 months and at no time did Joe Lieberman or Max Baccus or that Nelson Farker let democrats get shiat done.

And Democrats woudln't even NEED a 60 vote supermajority if republicans' weren't obstructionist douch nozzles over anything more controversial than naming post offices.

Ambivalence:EnviroDude: foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation

It's a tough sale of a political ad. It's complex, probably too much so for a 30-second TV or radio spot. No sound bites and/or catchy phrases.

This information requires a fully informed electorate. But, unfortunately, most Americans don't stay informed, much less vote. So, while I believe the GOP is responsible for obstructing recovery attempts with increased spending, it's tough to say they're doing this deliberately to sink President Obama. They can simply claim they have a different philosophy, but with no facts to back up their claims. The given chart in the article explains it very well though during previous recessions.

By the way, Republicans have no problem screwing America over to gain power. Look how they went to war in Iraq and cut taxes to make future Americans pay the bills. The GOP is a really messed up bunch of dysfunctional people.

kmmontandon:Ambivalence: Internet_Dentist: foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation

Oh, and it wasn't a year. It was 6 months, top.

Actually, it was only about five weeks.

This was just explained to the Internet Dentist in a thread this afternoon. He's being willfully obtuse in order to get attention.

I recommend "Shut up, you cock." as a response appropriate to his actions.

No one can make that kind of assumption. There are too many damned variables.

Normally I would agree, and I certainly can't know that an unfettered Obama and Congress would have achieved the goal. But here's the thing - this time the GOP has out and out admitted/bragged that it is more focused on taking down Obama than helping the nation.

And it's not just the politicians themselves. FOX and blogger 'patriots' trip over themselves to report any bad news and extrapolate it to the Obama administration. Cheaper gas is bad, deathless Libya was irresponsible, he doesn't deserve credit for Bin Laden, etc. For a bunch of folks who love waving flags and talking tough, they don't offer any alternative to fix America. They just cry and sh*t themselves in histrionic b*tch fits.

I regularly read your posts and you seem like a reasonable guy. You gotta admit the truth on this one: The GOP and their media currently exist solely to obstruct the president on anything, and fark the collateral damage. Dude, just look at the colossal clusterf*ck with the debt ceiling. It's pure politics at its worst.

EnviroDude:foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation

You know, this is less convincing when you have just immediately accused someone else of lying.

Quasar:I don't know how well the math holds up but I think it's quite reasonable to assume the economy would be better to some degree.

Agreed. Estimate upon estimate multiplies the degree of uncertainty and minimizes the 'significant figures.' A sizable degree of improvement I'm sure about, but even with the past admin numbers its a bit much to be firm without giving some sort of confidence range. But the editorial cartoon is spot on.

No one can make that kind of assumption. There are too many damned variables.

Normally I would agree, and I certainly can't know that an unfettered Obama and Congress would have achieved the goal. But here's the thing - this time the GOP has out and out admitted/bragged that it is more focused on taking down Obama than helping the nation.

And it's not just the politicians themselves. FOX and blogger 'patriots' trip over themselves to report any bad news and extrapolate it to the Obama administration. Cheaper gas is bad, deathless Libya was irresponsible, he doesn't deserve credit for Bin Laden, etc. For a bunch of folks who love waving flags and talking tough, they don't offer any alternative to fix America. They just cry and sh*t themselves in histrionic b*tch fits.

I regularly read your posts and you seem like a reasonable guy. You gotta admit the truth on this one: The GOP and their media currently exist solely to obstruct the president on anything, and fark the collateral damage. Dude, just look at the colossal clusterf*ck with the debt ceiling. It's pure politics at its worst.

They offer alternatives to fix America. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Increase military spending to make sure it is more than half the global total of military spending. Gut the social safety net. Gut infrastructure investments. Turn Social Security and Medicare over to private corporations to increase the wealth of the wealthy at the expense in services to the poor and middle classes. They have all kinds of (horrible) ideas.

Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.

Same with stimulus measures - if you know you're going to allocate a certain amount of money to infrastructure improvements, you can have a pretty good idea of how many people are going to be hired (or privately contracted, most often, meaning the contractors have to hire) to do those jobs.

Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING... well, other than add trillions of dollars to the national debt, of course. "JUST ONE MORE WOULD HAVE DONE IT!" is what you're going with?

Ambivalence:EnviroDude: foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation

You seem to be under the impression that democrats are just like republicans. This is not the case. When republicans have 60 caucus members they can be reasonably certain those 60 votes will all be available for important legislation.

When democrats have 60 caucus members, the 3 or 4 obnoxious tools realize that they can use that razor thin margain to hold the rest of the party hostage to their ridiculous demands.

Oh, and it wasn't a year. It was 6 months, top. First to wait for Franken to get officially sworn in, then the passing of Ted Kennedy. The democrats had 60 members in the senate for 6 months and at no time did Joe Lieberman or Max Baccus or that Nelson Farker let democrats get shiat done.

And Democrats woudln't even NEED a 60 vote supermajority if republicans' weren't obstructionist douch nozzles over anything more controversial than naming post offices.

GeneralJim:kmmontandon: Same with stimulus measures - if you know you're going to allocate a certain amount of money to infrastructure improvements, you can have a pretty good idea of how many people are going to be hired (or privately contracted, most often, meaning the contractors have to hire) to do those jobs.Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING... well, other than add trillions of dollars to the national debt, of course. "JUST ONE MORE WOULD HAVE DONE IT!" is what you're going with?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 140x150]

Just one more beer...Just one more bump....Just one more hit....Just one more fix...Just one more empty shoebox to hoard...Just one more stimulus.....

Giltric:GeneralJim: kmmontandon: Same with stimulus measures - if you know you're going to allocate a certain amount of money to infrastructure improvements, you can have a pretty good idea of how many people are going to be hired (or privately contracted, most often, meaning the contractors have to hire) to do those jobs.Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING... well, other than add trillions of dollars to the national debt, of course. "JUST ONE MORE WOULD HAVE DONE IT!" is what you're going with?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 140x150]

Just one more beer...Just one more bump....Just one more hit....Just one more fix...Just one more empty shoebox to hoard...Just one more stimulus.....